Filly v. Brace
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on note, dated 25th of February A. D. 1789, for £24 lawful money, payable on the 1st of November then next, with interest; writ dated the 16th day of January A. D. 1790. Plea in bar — That there was indorsed on the back of said note the following conditions, viz. The consideration of the within note is such, that the within named Filly did give said Brace a recommend to Elisha Cornish for fifteen or twenty pounds lawful money; if tlie said Brace doth.
Read the full summary
Action on note, dated 25th of February A. D. 1789, for £24 lawful money, payable on the 1st of November then next, with interest; writ dated the 16th day of January A. D. 1790. Plea in bar — That there was indorsed on the back of said note the following conditions, viz. The consideration of the within note is such, that the within named Filly did give said Brace a recommend to Elisha Cornish for fifteen or twenty pounds lawful money; if tlie said Brace doth. Fold tlie saidFilly harmless from that debt, then the within obligation to be void; otherwise to be in force: Averring that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Root, J.,
dissented. The case of Hart v. Bull, does not compare with this case. That was upon an indemnifying bond *509given by Bull after Hart ba,d become liable upon the notes, and was sued the next day; the bond therefore could not have been given to indemnify against a mere liability, but an actual damnification upon the notes, and Bull ought to have had a reasonable time allowed before a suit was brought on the bond.
Nor does the case of Brentnal and Helms apply in this case. That was an action brought upon a promise of general indemnity, against an obligation entered into by the plaintiff,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brown v. GatesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Lathrop v. AtwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1851
- Booth v. StarrSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1814